Dans une démonstration alarmante de l’autoritarisme numérique, la directive du ministère de l’Intérieur bloque tous les réseaux privés virtuels «illégaux» sous le prétexte de lutter contre le terrorisme …
In an alarming display of digital authoritarianism, the Ministry of Interior’s directive to block all ‘illegal’ virtual private networks (VPNs) under the pretext of combating terrorism and curbing ‘pornographic and blasphemous content’ marks yet another blow to Pakistan’s already battered digital landscape. Coupled with the Council of Islamic Ideology’s (CII) declaration branding VPNs as ‘un-Islamic’, this decision reveals a troubling lack of understanding about the critical role the internet plays in modern economies, governance, and personal freedoms. The repercussions of this short-sighted move have been immediate and far-reaching. Users across Pakistan have reported disruptions to essential communication platforms like WhatsApp and X (formerly Twitter). VPNs, which provide a secure channel for accessing restricted content and conducting confidential business transactions, have become indispensable tools for professionals and citizens alike. By targeting VPNs, the state has hampered the operations of countless businesses, stifled free expression, and dragged Pakistan’s digital progress back by decades.
This is not an isolated incident. From the covert ban on X by the caretaker government to the PDM coalition throttling internet access with the installation of a draconian firewall, these policies collectively signal an alarming trend. At a time when the world is harnessing artificial intelligence and advancing digital frontiers, Pakistan’s leadership seems determined to block, ban, stifle connectivity and innovation under the guise of moral policing and national security. Even within the ruling coalition, dissent is palpable. PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari recently criticised these restrictions, rightly pointing out the decision-makers’ detachment from the realities of the digital age and how out of touch these policies are with the needs of modern economy and society.
Experts have also raised concerns about the broader implications of these restrictions. By curtailing access to tools like VPNs and by blocking social media platforms, the government is inching dangerously close to the censorship models of authoritarian regimes. Such measures signal an aversion to transparency, a disregard for freedom of speech, and a desire to control information at all costs. The justification for these draconian measures – whether to counter terrorism or suppress ‘obscenity’ – is as flawed as it is alarming. While terrorism and fake news are legitimate concerns, they cannot and should not be addressed by blanket bans or authoritarian policies. The solution lies in creating robust legal frameworks that counter misinformation through transparency and fact-checking, not in stifling the digital lifelines of millions. Pakistan’s hybrid governance model increasingly seeks to regulate and control rather than empower and enable. In a true democracy, citizens would not need VPNs to access social media. In a true democracy, internet speeds would be enhanced, not throttled. And in a true democracy, the government would promote openness rather than hiding behind national security and religious rhetoric to justify its failures.
The world is watching as Pakistan’s leaders erode the fundamental rights of its citizens under the pretense of regulation. If this trajectory continues, Pakistan risks becoming a digital pariah state – cut off from progress, innovation, and the global conversation. For a country that desperately needs to attract investment, foster innovation, and amplify its voice on the international stage, these policies are not just damaging – they are suicidal. The state must abandon its obsession with control and embrace the spirit of connectivity, creativity, and freedom that defines the digital age. Anything less will only deepen the already cavernous divide between Pakistan and the rest of the world. And are we okay with allowing a nanny-state to monitor and dictate what private individuals consume as media?
French